- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:33:36 -0800
- To: "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
Bernard asked me what I thought the RTCRtpCapabilities should look like. Here's what I think they should look like: dictionary RTCRtpCapabilities { sequence<RTCRtpCodec> audioCodecs; sequence<RTCRtpCodec> videoCodecs; sequence<DOMString> headerExtensions; // Just the URIs sequence<RTCRtpFeatures> features; } dictionary RTCRtpCodec { DOMString name; // aka MIME media type int? clockrate; int? channels; sequence<KeyValueParam> formatParameters; } dictionary KeyValueParam { DOMString key; DOMString value; }; enum RTCRtpFeatures { "nack", // from RFC 4585, // ... } This is a lot like the existing RTCCodec, with the following notable differences: - There are two lists of codecs: one audio and one video. I suppose we could mix them together, but I think it's more convenient this way. - The RTCCodec doesn't have a specific payload type, because that's not part of a "capability". - There are header extensions in the capabilities. - There are "rtp features" in the capabilities, with a list we can expand on later. It still lacks RED and FEC, though, and I think we'd want to nail down how those would fit into the RTCRtpCapabilities. Are they an RTCRtpFeature, or a new dictionary type? In short, it's an expansion of the existing RTCCodec to match the new RtpSender/RtpReceiver model.
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 00:34:47 UTC